MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404471759 · doi:10.1177/17298806241283228

Adaptive iterative learning control for enhancing the dynamic path tracking accuracy of 6-degrees of freedom industrial robots

2024· article· en· W4404471759 on OpenAlexaff
Tingting Shu, Pengcheng Li, Ronghua Zhang, Wenfang Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIterative Learning Control Systems
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceIterative learning controlDegrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)RobotPath (computing)Tracking (education)Artificial intelligenceControl (management)Control theory (sociology)Control engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, an adaptive iterative learning control (AILC) scheme has been proposed to enhance the accuracy of the dynamic path tracking of 6-degrees of freedom industrial robots. Based on the memorized data and current feedback from a three-dimensional visual measurement instrument, an adaptive algorithm is developed to update the time-varying control parameters of the AILC scheme iteratively. A new compensation signal is calculated to adjust the control inputs produced by the dynamic path tracking control module at each time interval. Through the adaptation algorithm, the identical initial conditions can be relaxed to some extent with the AILC scheme. Moreover, the stability analysis of the proposed AILC scheme is presented. Experimental results on FANUC M20iA, using C-Track 780 as a photogrammetry sensor, demonstrate the superior performance of the developed AILC scheme in terms of pose accuracy, disturbance rejection ability, and control performance.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Robotic SystemsSame topicIterative Learning Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207